http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 2668 of 1998

PETITIONER:

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

INDU LAL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/04/2002

BENCH:

S.Rajendra Babu & Shivaraj V. Patil

JUDGMENT:

RAJENDRA BABU, J. :

Applications were filed under the Administrative Tribunals Act,

1985 by the respondents claiming parity between the Presenting Officer

of the Junior Administrative Grade and the Law Assistants. The

respondents claimed that they were designated as Presenting Officers in

terms of Section 19(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987

[hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'].

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench [hereinafter

referred to as 'the Tribunal'] enquired into the matter and in spite of

resistance from the appellants' side held that all Law Assistants and

Chief Law Assistants including the respondents were authorised to work

as Presenting Officer; that a reading of Section 19(2) of the Act indicates

that the Presenting Officer was equated with the legal practitioner; that

the Junior Administrative Grade Officers also had the power to

compound cases out of court and give direction about the conduct of the

cases before the court; that they were performing duties entrusted to

them and the applicants who were law graduates or having degree of

Master of Law were not allowed to claim even the ordinary grade of a

Gazetted Officer and they are placed in Group 'C' category; that they are

entitled to the relief they have sought for and granted the same by giving

the following directions:

"(a) The applicants who have been placed in one class of

Presenting Officers, be placed in the pay scale of Group 'B'

immediately, and the same should be given to them w.e.f. the date

of filing of O.A. which is 25.1.1993.

(b) The respondents shall constitute a Committee of experts within

one month from the date of communication of this order to

consider

(i) a suitable designation for the applicants and other similarly

placed officers authorised to act as Presenting Officers before the

Railway Claims Tribunal, and also placed in Groupd 'B' as per our

order in sub-para (a) hereinbefore,

(ii) the criteria and procedure, if necessary, for their

regularisation in Group 'B'.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4

(iii) the avenues of further promotions of the applicants and

other similarly placed persons, with suitable grades thereof,

(iv) the claim for kit and library allowance.

(c) The Committee shall hear the applicants and similarly situated

other persons an finalise its recommendations within three

months.

(d) the respondents shall take a decision on those

recommendations within a further period of three months from the

date of submission of the report of the Committee. While taking

action as per direction in this sub-para, the respondents may also

take note of recommendations if made in this regard, of Vth Pay

Commission."

Before we can consider the various aspects dealt with by the

Tribunal, we may notice a few decisions which have bearing on the

present matter.

In Union of India v. P.V. Hariharan, (1997) 3 SCC 568, this

Court observed that the courts or tribunals ought not to interfere with

pay scales without proper reasons and without being conscious of the

fact that fixation of pay is not their function. Change of pay scale of a

category has a cascading effect, when several other categories similarly

situated, would put forward their claims on the basis of such change,

which will lead to serious problems. Unless it can be clearly brought out

that they were carrying on identical work and there is a clear case of

hostile discrimination, there would be no justification for interference

with the fixation of pay scales.

In Union of India v. Makhan Chandra Roy, (1997) 11 SCC 182,

it was reiterated that the equation of post or pay must be left to the

executive Government and must be determined by expert bodies like Pay

Commission. The court should not try to tinker with such equivalence

unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration.

In State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni 1981

(4) SCC 130, it was observed that the matter of equation of posts is

purely an administrative function and such matter should be left to the

concerned Government. Any revision of pay would be an exercise which

is totally unathorised and would amount to taking a policy decision

which is within the domain of the authorities themselves who are the

authors of the pay scales or revision thereof.

In State of U.P. vs. J.P.Chaurasia, 1989 (1) SCC 121, this Court

observed that the matter of pay scale does not just depend upon either

the nature of work or volume of work done as primarily what is needed to

be noticed is evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective

posts. More often than not, functions of two posts may appear to be the

same or similar, but there may be difference in degrees in the

performance, like the responsibility attached to a particular office. In

such cases, it would not be open to the court to consider whether the

equation of posts made by the Government or the pay scales accorded to

them is right or wrong, as such matters are exclusively within the

province of the Government. Perhaps the only question the court can

enquire into is whether appropriate policy has been adopted by the

Government which does not result in hostile discrimination which is a

very narrow and limited area of enquiry. When equation of posts had

been done on some basis, the same should not be altered so as to equate

with some other post and enhance their pay scales.

The purpose of the Act was to provide establishment of a Railway

Claims Tribunal for enquiring into and determining claims against

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4

Railway Administration for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or

non-delivery of animals or goods entrusted to it to be carried by Railway

or for refund of freight or rate or compensation for death or injury to the

passengers occurring as a result of the railway accidents and for

incidental matters. Section 19(2) provides for representation before the

Tribunal either through legal practitioner or any officer of Railway

Department who is authorised by the Railway Administration.

The respondents claim that in pursuance of the powers under sub-

section (2) of Section 19 of the Act, Group 'A' officers as well as all those

who were previously working as Law Assistants and Chief Law Assistants

were appointed by the Railway Administration on a common ex-cadre

post designated as Presenting Officers to present the cases before the

Tribunal and they can be appointed as Presenting Officers; that though

they have been designated as Presenting Officers, they have been

deprived of pay, grade, status, perks and other benefits being given to

such Railway officers and they were still treated as subordinates and not

officers; that they had similar nature of duties as that of the Presenting

Officers but there is a gross disparity in their pay; that while one set of

Presenting Officers are getting pay scale in the grade of Rs.3700-5100/-,

the second set of Presenting Officers are getting pay scale in the grade of

Rs.1600-2600/- and Rs.2000-3200/- and this, they contended, would

result in hostile discrimination; that their initial mode of recruitment is

through departmental selection amongst the staff possessing a bachelor

of laws degree and five years experience of working in the Railways and

through Railway Service Commission amongst the candidates holding

Bachelor of laws degree and at least three years of practice at bar and

depending on the length of service Law Assistants are called the Chief

Law Assistants who are in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200/-; that the

nature of work of both the posts remains the same; that prior to the

transfer of the cases to the Tribunal, all cases were handled and

conducted before courts by the Railway Advocates, who were appointed

by the Railway Administration for the said purpose and the only duty of

the Law Assistants and Chief Law Assistants were to administratively

assist the Railway Advocates and all the legal work were to be

done/conducted by the Railway Advocates and the Law Assistants and

the Chief Law Assistants were not required to appear before the court;

that now there are only 8 Railway Advocates to conduct specific cases

and the Law Assistants and the Chief Law Assistants were appointed as

Presenting Officers under Section 19(2) of the Act to conduct all the rest

of the cases whereas there were 150 Railway Advocates previously

appointed have been reduced to only 8 advocates; that they have also to

coordinate with different sections or departments of the Railways to

secure the necessary data for preparation of the written statements/

replies, procuring of evidence, giving legal opinion in cases, to decide

whether to contest or settle the case out of court, to evaluate and

examine decrees and other official administrative work; that they also

drafted pleadings and advanced arguments which involve professional

work of great skill and they are not paid the appropriate emoluments

thereto; that their claim in substance was to convert their Group 'C'

Presenting Officer to Group 'B' gazetted status; to pay practising

allowance; to pay kit allowance and to accord benefits commensurate

with the post.

Factually it was averred on behalf of the appellants that

respondents Nos. 5, 12, 13 and 14 were never authorised to represent

the cases in the Tribunal and have never represented before the Tribunal

or any other court and, therefore, their claim that they were appointed as

Presenting Officers would not be correct. The post of Presenting Officer

in the Railways is not an ex-cadre post. Even Junior Administrative

Officer of the Indian Railway Traffic can be posted as a Presenting Officer

and it cannot be said that the Law Assistants or Chief Law Assistants

have been appointed as Presenting Officers and the nature of duties are

not the same.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4

The provisions of Section 19(2) reads as follows:

"A railway administration may authorise one or more legal

practitioners or any of its officers to act as Presenting Officers and

every person so authorised by it may present its case with respect

to any application before the Claims Tribunal."

When a matter is to be represented before the Tribunal, the railway

administration may authorise a legal practitioner to appear on their

behalf or in appropriate cases any of its officers to act as Presenting

Officers on their behalf. Thus the authorisation of an officer to present a

case before the Tribunal will not convert them as a separate cadre of

officers. Thus, the whole case put forth before the Tribunal that there is

an ex-cadre of Presenting Officer is misconceived. The factual position is

that only one Gazetted Officer of Junior Administrative Grade was

appointed as Presenting Officer and the other respondents were working

under the supervision and guidance of such officer. He has full

administrative control over them and they do not have similar nature of

duties and at no stage these officers were authorised to act

independently and had to get the approval for every act done by them

except for arguments in the Tribunal and they were also to get guidance

from Junior Administrative grade Presenting Officer, written statement to

be filed in the Tribunal was to be prepared by the concerned Law

Assistants and Chief Law Assistants but was approved by the Presenting

Officer.

On the overall consideration of the matter, we do not think that the

Tribunal was justified in giving the directions as aforesaid, particularly in

the light of the law to which we have adverted to in relation to equation of

posts or drawing a parity in the pay scales. Hence this appeal stands

allowed, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the applications filed

by the respondents before the Tribunal stand dismissed. No costs.

...J.

[ S. RAJENDRA BABU ]

...J.

[ SHIVARAJ V. PATIL ]

APRIL 29, 2002.